Developing Water Resources in Rural Jamaica: A Case Study in Southern Trelawny

Paul F. Hudak and Sarah McCallDepartment of GeographyUniversity of North Texas

Background

• Jamaica has abundant freshwater, but incomplete infrastructure for piped water

• Nearly 30% of the island’s 2.7 million people lack piped water

• Many rural Jamaicans obtain water from rooftop catchments, or by filling containers at public standpipes or springs

• Potentially, piped water would be more convenient and reliable, both in quantity and quality

Objective

• Investigate water sources and delivery systems, public perceptions, potential for piped water in rural southern Trelawny, Jamaica

Study Area

0 10 km

N

J a m a ic a

Tre la wny

Tho m p so nTo wn

Sp ringG a rd e n Alb e rt

To wn

Study Area (cont.)

• Exemplifies water problems faced by rural Jamaicans

• Predominantly farming

• Lacks improved roads, sewage treatment, piped water systems, adequate provisions for water quality (chlorination, filtering)

• Fragmented network of community water systems: Residents fill water at springs, tanks filled by water trucks, rooftop catchments

• Steep karst terrain: Complex fissures and caves absorb and transmit abundant rainfall, discharges to springs

Methods

• Surveyed adults from 77 households in Thompson Town

• STEA (planning agency)

• Approximately 423 people (77% of town’s population) live in surveyed households

• Studied outcomes of earlier water project for Spring Garden

Results

Thompson Town

• 58% from rooftop catchments (alternate sources in dry season)

• 35% from springs

• 7% from springs, rooftop catchments, public storage tanks equipped with standpipes

Results (cont.)

• 34% untreated; 66% chlorination or boiling, inconsistent

• 87% desire piped, treated water

• 33% had plumbing, faucets

• Given piped water:

• 65% prefer water meter• 21% prefer flat monthly rate• Others no opinion/response• On average, willing to pay $37 US for connection, $20

US per month for service

Results (cont.)

• Preferred provider:

• 53% private (better infrastructure, service)• 34% government (lower cost) • 13% no opinion/response

• Economic development, given piped water:

• 48% none• 20% grow more crops (e.g., carrots, peppers)• 10% raise chickens• 6% sell ice, juice• 8% other • 3% non-specific (but more productive)• 5% no response

Results (cont.)

Spring Garden • 122 houses, 700 people

• Project sponsored by STEA, local parish council, community

• Before 1999, water sources similar to Thomson Town

• Public forums, 1997-1999

• Existing sources inconvenient, unreliable, poorly maintained

• Desired piped water

Results (cont.)

• Upgrades:

• Increased storage capacity, installed filters, chlorinators at two local springs

• 4,900 m of PVC pipe along main road

• Cost approximately $84K US

Results (cont.)

• Applied to JSIF (public funding agency) for social infrastructure improvement grant

• Distributes grant money from World Bank, others

• JSIF 90%, sponsors 10%

• Parish council, community to maintain system

Results (cont.)

• Outcomes:

• Completed in 1999

• Infrastructure still in place, functioning in 2005

• Residents paid $50 US for hookup, $5 US/month for service

• Widespread dissatisfaction: Inconsistent quantity, quality (water not running, muddy)

Implications for Future • Potential problems with water systems serviced by

local governments, communities

• Government supports privatization of water, other services (e.g., electric)

• Gain technical expertise, new technology• Reduce public investment

• Difficult prospect in rural areas

• Lack population, financial resources• Long recovery periods

Implications (cont.)

• Government role in privatization

• Constrain service areas, provide incentives to promote broader access

• Strong regulation, including operating, quality standards

• Fair pricing structures (to both consumer provider): NWC not recovering sufficient tariffs (subsidized rate structure)

Implications (cont.)

• Water sources, delivery

• Local springs

• Gravity-driven distribution

0 1 km